Computers And The Modern Society

Recently, the FBI has asked Apple to create a backdoor into IPhones, allowing the government and anyone with access, to bypass security and access the data in an IPhone. The main reason that this has become such a popular issue is because of the aftermath of the San Bernardino attack. One of the attackers, Syed Farook, had an IPhone that is believed to have been used to communicate with other ISIS members. The FBI has been unable to open the phone, and is now asking Apple for a backdoor into the phone, which Apple promptly declined. If a backdoor is generated for all IPhones, anyone with the “key” to unlock the backdoor will have access to the entire world’s supply of data on IPhones, ranging from a middle schooler’s IPhone to the CEO of a

Apple’s iPhones are incredibly hard to hack, that the FBI can't even get in it themselves! Annoyingly, iPhone users are in trouble because the FBI is trying to get Apple to unlock an iPhone. Frighteningly, there are extremists that use iPhones to store their information in them, and if the FBI gets their hands on them, all iPhone users will be in trouble. The problem is that they don't have the right to break into somebody’s iPhone, and Apple doesn't have the information about the gunman in their database. Unfortunately, It seems the only way the FBI will get the information of lawbreakers is if they hack into their iPhones. Apple has to allow the FBI to unlock iPhones, because, they can use the information from

Now for the case that has kept the nation on the edge of their seats, we have Apple v. FBI. This has really split the nation as people are torn apart by wanting to side with the makers of their beloved iPhone or the government that has given many their freedom. This all started with a tragedy, unfortunately, the tragedy the San Bernardino shooting. After the terrorists were killed, the FBI obtained the iPhone from one of the shooters and believed that they could find more information in it. They turned to Apple in order to open up the phone, as iPhones are set to ‘self-destruct’ all data after 10 failed password attempts. Apple flat out refused. In a letter to the public sent out by Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, said, “Once the... way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.” This essentially is saying that someone could come along after the phone had been

If the backdoor was to fall into the wrong hands there could be a national violation of civil liberties.

In December of 2015, 14 people were killed and more than 20 people were injured in one of California’s most deadly shootings in recent history. A couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire in a conference center in San Bernardino. The two were later killed in a shootout with the police. Their case didn’t end there. The FBI searched their house, in which they found much evidence to back that this was a terrorist plot. But a crucial piece of evidence which they found was Syed Farook’s iPhone 5C. In today’s society, phones contain more information about ourselves than even we can remember. Emails, messages, notes, bank details and much more can be found on our phone. So when the FBI was able to get hold of Farook’s phone, they were more than content. But there was one more hurdle in front of them: encryption. Since we have so much information on our devices today, we have to have some form of protection against people who want to steal our personal information, scammers hackers and many. Apple has done this by encrypting almost every piece of user’s private information on their devices. The FBI wants a way around this encryption so that they can retrieve important information on Farook’s iPhone. They want Apple to create a shortcut that would allow them to bypass all of the security on Farook’s phone, but Apple is refusing saying that they want to protect their user’s privacy. Is the FBI forcing Apple to create a

What started as a private issue spread like wildfire as it was made public by Apple. This problem has created two sides that ask whether Apple should have the right to not oblige or if the FBI has the power to force them to make these means a reality. This specific issue opens up a greater problem that takes it outside the US and affects anyone with any kind of technology connected around the world: should the government have the right to access information on your phone? It’s a seemingly yes or no answer, but the precedent this situation will create makes it a lot more important as it can determine what the future of privacy on technology is like. When looking at the facts, rationality, and emotions that stem from whether the government should have the means

Apple should be forced to unlock an iPhone or not. It becomes a controversial topic during these years. Most of them are concerned with their privacy and security. Darrell Issa is a congressman and has served the government since 2001. Recently, he published “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent” in Wired Magazine, to persuade those governors worked in the Congress. It is easier to catch administrators’ attention because some of them want to force Apple to unlock the iPhone. Darrel Issa focuses on governors because he thinks they can support the law to make sure that everyone has privacy. He addresses the truth that even some of the governors force Apple to hack iPhones when they need people’s information. He considers maintaining people’s privacy as the primary purpose. He also insists that Apple should not be forced to use their information which could lead people’s safety. In “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent,” Darrell Issa uses statistics and historical evidence to effectively persuade his audience of governors that they need to consider Apple should force to hack or not because it could bring people to a dangerous situation and forget the purpose of keeping people’s privacy.

Opposing Apple’s argument, the F.B.I emphasizes national security. With the disposal of the information stored on the phone, the U.S. Government could in theory prevent pending terrorist attacks. Regretfully, there is no way to ensure that the “backdoor” that would be used in this case, would only be used once. In his open letter, Tim Cook illustrates his regard to the plan:

As you are aware, on December 2, 2015 a terrorist attack took place at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California in which 14 civilians were killed and 22 others were seriously injured. On February 9, 2016 the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) announced that it was unable to unlock one of the mobile phones they recovered, an Apple I-phone issued by the county of San Bernardino to the shooter Syed Rizwan Farook due to its advanced security features. (Volz, Dustin; Hosenball, Mark (February 9, 2016). "FBI director says investigators unable to unlock San Bernardino shooter 's phone content". Reuters). The FBI requested from Apple Inc., a multinational technology giant, that they create a new version of the phone’s operating system that could be installed and run in the phone’s random access memory to disable certain security features. This would effectively create a back door into the I-phone. Apple turned down the FBI’s request due to a security concern. Thus began a fight between the United States Government and Apple Inc. over breaking encryption and government intrusion. The clash reflects wider debates in the United States and elsewhere over security measures used by companies to protect users of devices such as smartphones — and how much leverage authorities should have to gain

FBI case have been examined, the issues and problems that come with allowing unsafe access can now be discussed. Adam Levin wrote an article for The Huffington Post and he says that the FBI is indecisive and unreliable due to the fact that in 2014 the FBI had decided against using legislatively force decryption on technology, and the fact that they’ve completely changed ideas on the topic is unsettling, especially when they know so little about it (Levin). The people who believe that Apple needs to give the FBI access into the phone do not understand technology; the codes that would be made to break into the phone would be a strong one and it can and will fall into the wrong hands, causing chaos. Eric Litchblau, a writer for The New York Times, mentions the fact that since the FBI doesn’t completely understand the repercussions that will happen if Apple allows them the access they need just goes to show that law enforcement in general want to do what’s best for them and their cases, and not necessarily what’s best for the entire public

In today’s society, technology has become one of the most used and most sought after developments of the millennium. In a recent case the FBI petitioned for Apple to unlock the phone of Syed Farook, the man responsible for shooting and killing 14 people in San Bernardino, California. The FBI believed Apple should create a new software that would not erase the data from iPhones after ten failed attempts to unlock the phone. Apple replied that they had a responsibility and an obligation to protect the privacy of their customers. Supporters of Apple 's response have argued, creating a new software was not a wise decision. In the past, government agencies have been known for their abuse of power. Had Apple chosen to create a master key for this particular case, there would be no limit to government invasion of privacy. In the end Apple could have potentially lost costumers by changing the protection of their cellular products. The issue has already been raised that creating software to access one locked device could potentially open the door for hackers to invade millions of other people’s devices. I agree that Apple should not create a new software to unlock the phone because once a master lock is created there are no limitations to who or how the coding can be used.

There are so many hackers in the world that with the spying technology being embedded into telephones, it is so easy for hackers to break into these technologies, and it could potentially lead to more problems than necessary. With all of this technology, it is easier to have accesses to certain things, because with the right knowledge, everything is universal. With all of this technology, any criminal can gain access to the same things that the government claim that only they have access to. Some people are intelligent, and do not use their knowledge for good. It is not good that the government has all these technologies put into devices, if someone is smart enough they can steal all this information from the government and other people. They think that they are keeping people safe, but encryption is the best option to keep people's’ information safe even if the government says that the information is

Also in the same way, a very recent publically exploited investigation helped general population understand the threat of this action really happening. On March 28th, 2016 the Apple vs FBI case raised. This case was and still Is a quite controversial topic. See on November 2nd, 2015 the San Bernardino Shooting happened, and with this being said the shooter had an iPhone something very valuable to the FBIs investigation. The tricky thing is the FBI had trouble unlocking the encryption key( aka the password lock ;) ) of the phone, so they asked apple for their cooperation. The twist is in addition to unlocking the encryption key, the FBI asked Apple to install a backdoor on all iPhones in a new software update. If Apple did this a huge gap

According to POLITICO’s post, Feds Drop Fight with Apple over Terrorist's IPhone, dated March 28, 2016, the Federal government asked Apple to help them access a terrorist’s phone. Apple, with their strict privacy laws declined this request. This prompted a legal fight between the Federal government and Apple, who have been in conflict since the release of IOS 8, which encrypted data in the devices. The FBI insisted that Apple should make a backdoor for them to access the devices in case of a national security issue. The issue went to court and a judge in California ordered Apple to unlock the phone of which Apple did not comply. According to Apple, the move could make every Apple customer vulnerable to attacks and

However, as in the case with Apple, the ramifications of a backdoor are much more severe. This is because building a backdoor is the same as building a weakened cybersecurity system. Bruce Schneier, a renowned cybersecurity official, corroborates this analysis when he states that a backdoor “amounts to creating a system with a built-in flaw.” With such weakness, it is not safe to assume that the backdoor will only be used by the U.S. government or even that it will be used for legitimate purposes. On the contrary, it is safe to assume that it will not be “long before the same security vulnerability becomes known to hostile foreign governments, sophisticated hackers, and cybercriminals.” With such possibility, the threat to an individual’s human rights becomes to great to not avoid. Considering that the effects of a backdoor are not localized—it does not only apply to one individual—any chilling effect silences an entire subset of users who use the encrypted device. As such, corporations are obligated to protect their consumers from such human right threats because of due diligence.